Monitoring election contributions and expenditure
has been given emphasis by the Comelec in the 2013
Philippine mid-term elections to improve
opportunities and chance for candidates with limited
resources for a successful campaign. However,
enforcement of and compliance to these regulations
were muted due to a combination of resource
constraints of Comelec, unclear implementing rules,
and existing election rules & regulations which
contradict the spirit of campaign finance laws.

On one hand, expenses are controlled, with each
candidate and political party having to abide by
spending caps. On the other hand, contributions are
monitored to ensure that public funds are not
utilized especially by incumbents to undue
advantage. Another intended goal is to stem
corruption by ensuring that illicit sources of funds
are not used for campaign purposes.

The main tool employed by Comelec requires all
candidates and political parties to submit financial
reports not more than 30 days after the elections as
required by the election code. This is easier
imposed than complied with.

Definition of candidates: the
crux of the problem

The primary weakness of enforcement and compliance
stems from the definition of candidates being
considered as such only at the start of the election
campaign period and not upon filing as ruled by the
Supreme Court in the Comelec vs. Penera case.

This interpretation runs counter to Comelec’s
earlier view that officials who file their candidacy
for re-election or another post has already declared
his intention to run. Since the definition of a
candidate would only take effect once the campaign
period sets
in, then the official cannot be considered a
candidate yet.

This also undermines the rule by providing feedback
to
prospective contributors to donate for the
candidates' campaign. The consideration period also
complicates contribution and expenditure reporting.
Given this definition, they may not declare
contributions prior to the election period and these
are not considered an election offense. However,
incumbents who do so may be charged with bribery.

Premature campaigning & its
effects

This unclear definition has resulted in early
campaigning leading to the practice of front loading
expenses prior to the start of the campaign period
(Jan. 13). These premature election activities
(campaigning, contribution and spending) effectively
negate the gains to be made for an inclusive and
competitive environment during the election
campaigning.

Also, an unintended effect of putting an early cap
resulted to campaigns becoming more expensive for a
prospective candidate. Observers also have
attributed a surge in vote buying in past elections
as a deflected effect of imposing spending
restrictions early on. The weeks preceding election
day are viewed by most candidates as “catch-up days”
who are lagging behind formal and informal surveys.

Unclear definition favors
incumbents and/or the resource-laden

The loophole in the definition of a candidate also
raised concerns and even some accusations that the
Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) and
conditional cash transfer (CCT) program were used to
favor local incumbents backed by the administration
party.

To quell these concerns and in observance of the
election ban, government agencies such as the DSWD
suspended the distribution of cash under the program
and resumed only after the campaign period. On the
other hand, to prevent the abuse of the PDAF,
prohibitions to procurement; construction and
appointments activities prior to and during the
campaign period was strictly observed.

In another instance, given that a sizeable amount of
campaign funds are spent on advertising placements
with broadcast media, Comelec’s initial tack to
enforce expenditure cap was to impose the 20-minute
limit on political ads of candidates. However, the
high courts ruling ordered Comelec to revert to the
airtime limits (120 minutes/180 minutes per station,
for candidates or registered political parties for a
National Elective Position and 60 minutes/ 90
minutes airtime limit, per station for a Local
Elective Position,) imposed on candidates during the
2010 elections. This resulted in a surge in
broadcast advertising spending approaching election
day.

Inconsistent enforcement
diminishes impact

Another challenge is Comelec’s limits to enforce
penalties on campaign finance violators. Comelec has
a memorandum of agreement with the Department of
Interior and Local Government (DILG), which
prohibits local officials from assuming office
without submitting their expense reports. However,
it has no power to compel the Senate or the House to
bar non-compliant officials from taking their posts.

Non-enforcement of campaign finance rules in 2010
also undermined the public’s confidence of Comelec’s
resolve with the absence of a 2010 SOCE compliance
report. Candidates who have not filed statement of
contributions and expenditures (SOCEs) in two
elections will be disqualified from running for
public office in succeeding elections.

In past elections, Comelec had been lax and lenient
in implementing campaign finance regulations.
Comelec's sudden strictness this year is still
shrouded with doubt and questions from political
parties and candidates on the resolve of the poll
body to enforce these regulations. Some have even
scoffed at its capability to mete out penalties
whether to those remiss in submitting the proper
SOCE's or violations to spending caps.

Recommendations

A further review of existing campaign finance law
and its implementing regulations is needed to
clarify the definition and reconcile the disparate
and inconsistent rules and regulations. In addition,
more innovative legislation has to be crafted
related to campaign contribution regulations,
state-support on election finance and strengthening
the political party system.

To increase its effectiveness to monitor and improve
enforcement, resources have to be allocated to
improve the capability of the Comelec’s Campaign
Finance Unit and a muliti-sectoral and multi-agency
task force has to be set up to support the Unit in
its tasks.

As previously suggested by NAMFREL, periodic
electronic report submissions and outsourcing the
task of auditing the SOCE to private auditors could
also ensure the quality and accuracy of reports
filed before the Comelec.